1 במאי

user warning: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ') ORDER BY fit DESC LIMIT 0, 1' at line 1 query: SELECT * FROM menu_router WHERE path IN () ORDER BY fit DESC LIMIT 0, 1 in /home/israel/public_html/drupal-6.19/includes/menu.inc on line 315.

המארגנים של אירועי 1 במאי החליטו לדחות את דאמו המתוכנן ל2 במאי.
הסיבה לכך היא שהשנה הראשון למאי זהו יום השואה.
למארגנים נראה הגיוני ומוסרי לדחות את חג עובדים הבינלאומיבגלל סיבה זו.
אך אם החלטה זאת הגיונית ומוסרית באמת?

לא נראה לי.
שאלה ראשונה שמופיעה לי בראש היא למה ציונשיסטים קובעים את יום השואה?
מה קשר שלהם לשואה בכלל?
אחרי ששיתפו פעולה עם הנאצים, אחרי שגנבו כסף של ניצולי השואה(ההורים שלי הם גם מניצולי השואה ואמה שלי נפלה קורבן לגנבים הללו)יש להם חוצפה לקבועה מועדים!?
ובקשר לציון של יום השואה עצמו: למה באביב ולא בסתיו, כאשר התרחש רצח המוני בבאבי יאר?
ועוד הערה לגבי מועד של יום השואה שכל השנה נופל לתאריך אחר.
מה שמשטר הציונשיסטי נתן מונופול לקבועה מועדים במדינה לכמורה היהודית קלריקל פשיסטית נראה לי הגיוני.
לא חיכיתי מציונשיסטים מהשהו אחר.
אך למה אלה, שנחשבים את העצמם שמאל מקבלים את כללים אשר נקבעו על ידי ציונשיסטים?!
ובסוף ברצוני לציין עוד דבר:
לא מעט דם של פועלים סביב העולם נשפך למען זכות לציין חג הזה .
גם היום פועלים במדינות רבות משלמים בדממם על מנת לציין 1 במאי.
לכן, אם רציתם להמנע מחיכוכים עם ציונשיסטים, היה אפשר לציין ראשון במאי בערב של אותו יום, כיום השואה לפי לוח זמנים הדתי פג באותו ערב.

Comments

Re: More "Israeli" Propaganda

"700,000 Palestinians in 1919"

Is your definition of "palestinian" any one who isn't a Jew?

Or does this figure include the Jews living in this land, too?

Here's some census data- so just how do you define Palestinian?

The Turkish census of 1905, gives these figures for the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50.

Re: More "Israeli" Propaganda

Speaking of mythology ...

An invention called 'the Jewish people'
By Tom Segev
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html

Tiny,vocal minority

Only a tiny, vocal minority of Jews are in any way "anti-zionist". Of those, the most are Jews by an accident of birth only and are generally Marxists. They are ignored by the mainstream and are considered fringe.

Re: 1 במאי

הם בטח סתם לא חשבו על זה -- הם הרי חילוניים מעין להם לזכור כזה דבר?

The truth about Beit Jala

This is the wall between Gilo and Beit Jala that Israel built to protect her citizens" 'This is the village called Beit Jala,' he told me, 'and the tank fired from over there, in Gilo' - where I had been the day before."

What really happened:

The Jewish neighborhood of Gilo was under siege- it was subject to over 400 attacks by Palestinian Muslim terrorists, who had hidden in the Christian neighborhood of Beit Jala. People were afraid to leave their homes.
The Palestinians were hoping Israel would retaliate, and cause damage to teh Christian community- they have been attempting to undermine Christian support for Israel foir years.
Instead, to protect her citizens- Israel built a wall.

'Antisemitic' Slur Curbs Talk About Israel

Sorry, Plant, but the Tactic of Disinformation you've engaged in here is Change the Subject.

Hmmm ... Another Zionist/Plant LIE Exposed (Again):

CAMERA ALERT: Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369

'Antisemitic' Slur Curbs Talk About Israel

And that's why Zionists, including our Plant, use it. It works.

Sometimes ...

By Michael Smerconish

The book by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

One year after 9/11, I visited Israel as a guest of the Jerusalem Post. In the midst of the intifadah, the hard-line newspaper arranged for me to broadcast my daily radio show from Jerusalem. At the time, I was also filing one-minute commentaries for KYW-AM (1060). One of them caused some consternation at home. Here is what I said:

"Yesterday, an Israeli guide was anxious to show me the community called Gilo.

" 'Look,' he said, 'at the sandbags that these people have to place in their windows to shield them from sniper fire from a neighboring village called Beit Jala.'

"Sure enough, there were sandbags in windows and bullet holes in walls. Thinking of my kids, I said, 'That's no place to raise a family.'

"Today, I had a different guide with a different perspective. He wanted me to tour an Arab neighborhood in the West Bank.

" 'Look at where Israeli tank fire has destroyed these homes,' he said to me. I looked. The devastation was terrible. 'This is no place to live,' I said to myself.

" 'Where are we?' I asked.

" 'This is the village called Beit Jala,' he told me, 'and the tank fired from over there, in Gilo' - where I had been the day before."

I ended the commentary by saying: "And so it goes."

My intention was only to present a form of geopolitical glass half empty/half full, not to assert any moral equivalency. But that didn't spare me an onslaught of e-mail from Jewish listeners disappointed in what I had said, or what they thought I was implying. Some told me my "comparison" was anti-Semitic, which stunned me, given that my entire trip had a palpable, pro-Israeli tone.

I was reminded of that experience this week while considering the backlash against the release of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Mearsheimer is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Walt is a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Their book is an outgrowth of their lengthy online article on the same subject, and of a 40-page essay published last spring in the London Review of Books. Their premise is that the United States has set aside its own security to advance the interests of Israel, owing to the existence of a "lobby," which they define as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

Among their observations is that anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have a significant influence over U.S. policy stands a good chance of being labeled anti-Semitic.

Labeling has become all too common in today's political debate, overlooking that few of us can neatly be compartmentalized under words such as liberal or conservative. Speak against same-sex marriage? You must be a "homophobe." Oppose affirmative action? That sounds "racist."

Similarly, to question U.S. support for Israel runs the risk of being branded "anti-Semitic." Perhaps it's only a small minority who assign the labels. Still, each debasing generalization stifles conversation about issues of the day. The shame is that some people, who already have a seat at the table, resort to such language as a way to prevent those of different views from even getting to the table at all.

Here's hoping that, six years removed from 9/11, Mearsheimer and Walt can initiate a reasonable conversation about Israel. No subject with implications for U.S. security should be off-limits. Among their words worthy of debate are these: "[S]aying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

Of course, others conclude that the origins of America's terror problem are much wider in scope than Israel alone; they argue that disdain for America's relationship with Israel long preceded the modern terrorist threat. I say let's air it out.

Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments sound similar to words spoken to me by Michael Scheuer, author of the book Imperial Hubris and a man who spent 22 years with the CIA. From 1996 to 1999, he ran "Alec Station," the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. He told me he agreed with Mearsheimer and Walt that the Israeli lobby had "distorted and burdened" U.S. foreign policy.

"The most dangerous aspect of the Israel lobby," Scheuer said, "is that it threatens free speech in America. Very few Americans will exercise their right to free speech if criticizing Israel earns them identification as an anti-Semite."

Which reminds me that after I recently interviewed Scheuer, a blog posting said: "He won't out-and-out claim he hates Jews, but everything he criticizes centers around Israel and the 'dual loyalty' of neo-cons. You would be smart to avoid using this man as a reference. Soon he will reveal himself to be the true anti-Semite he is."

Scheuer argues that he was hired by the CIA not to be guardian of the world, but to be a guardian of the American people, and that our foreign policy should be designed to protect Americans first. This is exactly what Mearsheimer and Walt say we have abdicated.

Hardly an anti-Semitic view, and these well-credentialed academics have gone to great lengths to defuse any accusations of personal animus toward Israel.

"In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' union, or other ethnic lobbies," they write in the London Review of Books. "There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy; the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Their words are falling on deaf ears in certain quarters. A number of potential forums for discussion with the authors have turned down or canceled events. According to the New York Times, these include the Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a Jewish cultural center in Washington, and three organizations in Chicago.

This would seem only to strengthen their argument.

Video:

The Doha Debates: The Zionist Lobby Stifles Debate
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7985100635045440998

Democratic Rep. accuses AIPAC of having "pushed" the Iraq war
mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/09/democratic-rep-accused-aipac-of-havin

"From Dr. King"

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/aa.htm

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

Definition:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Examples:

1. Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
2. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this point.)
3. We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
4. My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
5. The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to check the Citizen's sources.)

Proof:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.

References:

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69

Re: Martin Luther King on Israel

From Dr. King: “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

The Use and Abuse of Martin Luther King Jr. by Israel's Apologists

by Fadi Kiblawi & Will Youmans
Source: The Palestine Chronicle

In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

Dr. King's expertise as a non-violent civil rights leader and visionary are unparalleled in U.S. history. However, that does not make him an informed commentator on Middle Eastern affairs or on the ideological facets of Zionism. As impressive as the references to his views on Israel may seem, this is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

Finding direct and published utterances by Dr. King about the modern Middle East and Zionism is extremely rare. A cursory review of dozens of books on and by the civil rights leader turned up nothing.

Nonetheless, defenders of Israel often refer to a letter by Dr. King. This letter is reprinted in full on many web pages and in print. One example of a quotation derived from this letter is:

"... You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist' ... And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews... Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."

Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it originated from a "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" in an August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise's discovery. The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries. Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was "apparently" a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The "letter" came from a "reputable" book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

The bogus letter was further quoted by writers in prominent publications one would imagine armed with fact-checkers capable of spending the short amount of time needed to verify the primary source. Mort Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief of the U.S. News & World Report quoted the letter in a column (9/17/01). Warren Kinsella followed suit in an article for Maclean's (1/20/03). Commentary, which is known more for its ideological zeal than any appreciation for factual scruples, ran a piece by Natan Sharansky. He quoted the false passage as a block--some ten months after CAMERA declared it a hoax.

More recently, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) featured excerpts from the letter prominently on its website. Despite its name, SPME is an advocacy group seeking to bolster Israel's image on campus�a mission it claims promotes peace in the region. Ironically, right under the false Dr. King quotation is an announcement of the formation of a task force "dealing with academic integrity with respect to fabricating and falsifying data when discussing the Middle East." After one of the authors of this article informed SPME's director of the quotation's discredited status, he replied with hostility despite the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect. After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly far-fetched quote:

Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard when he said: ".. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' ...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews... And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in a 1968 Harvard "speech." However, the language of SMPE's new posting strongly resembles their original one -- on account of the fact that it too comes from the same discredited "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend."

The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter is strikingly unscholarly -- as is the false citation of it to a 1968 "speech" at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from another unspecified source--classic plagiarism, whether intentional or out of gross negligence.

SPME's reference to a 1968 "speech" at Harvard mirrors the details from a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset's 1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op/ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King personally.

Lipset wrote in his essay "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel" about a "dinner" for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made "some remark against the Zionists," Dr. King "snapped" back, "'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism'." The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset's essay.

Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment "shortly before his death" during "an appearance at Harvard." Lipset states it was "shortly before he was assassinated" at a "dinnergiven for him in Cambridge." This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 "speech" at Harvard).

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a "fund-raising mission," which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

While these points raise some doubt, let us assume that the quote is accurate.

This is where context comes in. One of the principal arguments of Lipset's 1969 article is that the split between blacks and Jews "stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict." He identifies Jews as a dominating force within the civil rights movement. Black nationalist leadership wanted to distance themselves from Whites in the movement, Lipset argues. In Lipset's own words, he summarized what Black nationalists were saying: "We don't want whites, but we particularly don't want Jews, and we are expressing antagonism to Jews in the form of opposition to Israel."

Few of the articles that cite Lipset's essay mention this crucial context. One individual who did explore this, albeit crudely, still managed to contrive another Dr. King quote unimaginatively. Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical professor at Brown University, wrote an article for Front Page Magazine (1/20/03) that was reprinted on former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's website. In it, he claimed that Dr. King had the "moral courage" to confront the anti-Jewish rhetoric of black left-wing and Muslim organizations. This is not to say that Dr. Bostom is a reliable source. Central to his article is a 347-word passage, which he attributes to Dr. King. He fails to cite a source for the outlandish tirade. A quick google search determined it was lifted entirely from original material on the homepage of www.yahoodi.com (which has a copyright date of 2002), plus healthy portions of the fake "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend." Dr. Bostom's article featured the least creative and perhaps most fraudulent doctored script yet: a patchwork of plagiarism.

Taking the context described by Lipset and Dr. Bostom to be generally correct for the sake of argument would shed light on the credible Dr. King quotes. If the movement he figured so prominently in was facing such a rift, his response was only natural. To borrow Lipset's analysis then, Dr. King's statement also "stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict." Given his local political anxieties, Dr. King was hardly the kind of disinterested authority worth quoting on the subject.

As a note: the actual validity of Lipset and Dr. Bostom's views of that context is beyond the scope of this essay. While it is true that black nationalists, such as SNCC's leadership, became increasingly critical of Israel after 1967, it is not convincing that the motive was to alienate American Jews even if that was the foreseeable effect. An ardent internationalist for example would care more about linking oppressed people's struggles across the globe than they would about the relatively mainstream political movement for equality in the American polity.

Back to the main point: if the forged quotes reflecting Dr. King's views on Israel were accurate, citing him would still be classic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Where is the proof that Dr. King studied the region or its modern history? The dearth of then-publicized comments and writings on the region by Dr. King shows that it was probably not a subject he was well-versed on, nor did it appear to be a priority of his throughout his career.

Even the statements Congressman Lewis attributes to him are low in substance and high on flourishing rhetoric. For example, Dr. King stated that Israel is a "marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy." Referring to it as "marvelous" and an "oasis" sounds rather uninformed given the realities of military occupation and the forced exile the Palestinians have witnessed since Israel's foundation. They surely do not sound like the words of someone familiar with both sides of the story.

More significantly, as Tim Wise pointed out, Dr. King's supposed statements on Zionism came before the more than three decades of crippling Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the 1987 Intifada that grabbed the world's attention. The Palestinian narrative was sparsely conveyed in the United States up to that point. There were few Arabs or Palestinians in the U.S. and fewer Arab academics, policymakers, and activists working with Dr. King. Wise also suggests that application of Dr. King's principles logically give way to more sympathy to the Palestinian side given the systematic inequality it faces.

That advocates of Israel have relied on fabricated and out-of-context quotations from a leading moral figure of yesteryear only underscores the absurdity of the general point that all opposition to a Jewish state in a diverse land is anti-Semitic. There are obviously many legitimate ways to critique Zionism. One quite reasonable observation is that after more than a half-century of conflict, the Zionist project has failed to bring the Jews of Israel peace and security--its raison d'etre. One might counter that this is due to Arab intransigence; the Palestinians should accept their dispossession. However, Palestinian opposition to this fate is an indisputable fact, and security was and is Zionism's key goal. This necessarily was an analytical failure on the part of the Zionists who assumed the Palestinians would blend in to other Arab countries while the later generations forget their past. To dismiss this argument--one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals--and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.

This is not to say that all opponents of Israel are not anti-Semitic. Of course the Palestinian cause, like all movements, is exploited by those with other agendas, such as David Duke and Osama Bin Laden. Blanket statements in either direction are inaccurate.

The main reason why critique of Zionism persists is that whether Israeli officials like it or not, history as it is written and the actual land are still disputed by the millions of Palestinians who are refugees as a result of Israel's birth, the 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israel's direct military rule, and the Palestinians who compose 20% of Israel's citizens in second class status. If Israel was founded and developed on uncontested terrain then arguments against its existence would more likely be out of hatred against the Jewish people. For supporters of Israel to wipe away all critics of the methods and outcomes of Israel's foundation with the "anti-Semitic" label denies completely the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative--the experiences and perspectives that never show up in Dr. King's imagined "oasis."

Dr. King, though long-passed, is still monumental in the continuing movement for civil rights in the United States. His legacy should be celebrated, and also critiqued constructively; it should not be falsified or stretched to accommodate a different agenda today. The context behind Dr. King's authentic statements on Zionism was unique to a particular domestic political moment in order to sustain a fragile political coalition. Beyond that, Dr. King never claimed any expertise on the subject, nor made it a frequent topic of his speeches or writings. Claiming that all critiques of Zionism are anti-Semitic based on the force Martin Luther King Jr.'s words on the matter fails as an argument on many different levels.

http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=1393

The Use and Abuse of Martin Luther King Jr. by Israel's Apologists

by Fadi Kiblawi & Will Youmans
Source: The Palestine Chronicle

In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

Dr. King's expertise as a non-violent civil rights leader and visionary are unparalleled in U.S. history. However, that does not make him an informed commentator on Middle Eastern affairs or on the ideological facets of Zionism. As impressive as the references to his views on Israel may seem, this is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

Finding direct and published utterances by Dr. King about the modern Middle East and Zionism is extremely rare. A cursory review of dozens of books on and by the civil rights leader turned up nothing.

Nonetheless, defenders of Israel often refer to a letter by Dr. King. This letter is reprinted in full on many web pages and in print. One example of a quotation derived from this letter is:

"... You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist' ... And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews... Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."

Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it originated from a "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" in an August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise's discovery. The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries. Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was "apparently" a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The "letter" came from a "reputable" book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

The bogus letter was further quoted by writers in prominent publications one would imagine armed with fact-checkers capable of spending the short amount of time needed to verify the primary source. Mort Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief of the U.S. News & World Report quoted the letter in a column (9/17/01). Warren Kinsella followed suit in an article for Maclean's (1/20/03). Commentary, which is known more for its ideological zeal than any appreciation for factual scruples, ran a piece by Natan Sharansky. He quoted the false passage as a block--some ten months after CAMERA declared it a hoax.

More recently, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) featured excerpts from the letter prominently on its website. Despite its name, SPME is an advocacy group seeking to bolster Israel's image on campus�a mission it claims promotes peace in the region. Ironically, right under the false Dr. King quotation is an announcement of the formation of a task force "dealing with academic integrity with respect to fabricating and falsifying data when discussing the Middle East." After one of the authors of this article informed SPME's director of the quotation's discredited status, he replied with hostility despite the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect. After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly far-fetched quote:

Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard when he said: ".. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' ...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews... And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in a 1968 Harvard "speech." However, the language of SMPE's new posting strongly resembles their original one -- on account of the fact that it too comes from the same discredited "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend."

The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter is strikingly unscholarly -- as is the false citation of it to a 1968 "speech" at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from another unspecified source--classic plagiarism, whether intentional or out of gross negligence.

SPME's reference to a 1968 "speech" at Harvard mirrors the details from a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset's 1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op/ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King personally.

Lipset wrote in his essay "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel" about a "dinner" for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made "some remark against the Zionists," Dr. King "snapped" back, "'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism'." The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset's essay.

Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment "shortly before his death" during "an appearance at Harvard." Lipset states it was "shortly before he was assassinated" at a "dinnergiven for him in Cambridge." This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 "speech" at Harvard).

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago--April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a "fund-raising mission," which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

While these points raise some doubt, let us assume that the quote is accurate.

This is where context comes in. One of the principal arguments of Lipset's 1969 article is that the split between blacks and Jews "stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict." He identifies Jews as a dominating force within the civil rights movement. Black nationalist leadership wanted to distance themselves from Whites in the movement, Lipset argues. In Lipset's own words, he summarized what Black nationalists were saying: "We don't want whites, but we particularly don't want Jews, and we are expressing antagonism to Jews in the form of opposition to Israel."

Few of the articles that cite Lipset's essay mention this crucial context. One individual who did explore this, albeit crudely, still managed to contrive another Dr. King quote unimaginatively. Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical professor at Brown University, wrote an article for Front Page Magazine (1/20/03) that was reprinted on former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's website. In it, he claimed that Dr. King had the "moral courage" to confront the anti-Jewish rhetoric of black left-wing and Muslim organizations. This is not to say that Dr. Bostom is a reliable source. Central to his article is a 347-word passage, which he attributes to Dr. King. He fails to cite a source for the outlandish tirade. A quick google search determined it was lifted entirely from original material on the homepage of www.yahoodi.com (which has a copyright date of 2002), plus healthy portions of the fake "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend." Dr. Bostom's article featured the least creative and perhaps most fraudulent doctored script yet: a patchwork of plagiarism.

Taking the context described by Lipset and Dr. Bostom to be generally correct for the sake of argument would shed light on the credible Dr. King quotes. If the movement he figured so prominently in was facing such a rift, his response was only natural. To borrow Lipset's analysis then, Dr. King's statement also "stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict." Given his local political anxieties, Dr. King was hardly the kind of disinterested authority worth quoting on the subject.

As a note: the actual validity of Lipset and Dr. Bostom's views of that context is beyond the scope of this essay. While it is true that black nationalists, such as SNCC's leadership, became increasingly critical of Israel after 1967, it is not convincing that the motive was to alienate American Jews even if that was the foreseeable effect. An ardent internationalist for example would care more about linking oppressed people's struggles across the globe than they would about the relatively mainstream political movement for equality in the American polity.

Back to the main point: if the forged quotes reflecting Dr. King's views on Israel were accurate, citing him would still be classic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Where is the proof that Dr. King studied the region or its modern history? The dearth of then-publicized comments and writings on the region by Dr. King shows that it was probably not a subject he was well-versed on, nor did it appear to be a priority of his throughout his career.

Even the statements Congressman Lewis attributes to him are low in substance and high on flourishing rhetoric. For example, Dr. King stated that Israel is a "marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy." Referring to it as "marvelous" and an "oasis" sounds rather uninformed given the realities of military occupation and the forced exile the Palestinians have witnessed since Israel's foundation. They surely do not sound like the words of someone familiar with both sides of the story.

More significantly, as Tim Wise pointed out, Dr. King's supposed statements on Zionism came before the more than three decades of crippling Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the 1987 Intifada that grabbed the world's attention. The Palestinian narrative was sparsely conveyed in the United States up to that point. There were few Arabs or Palestinians in the U.S. and fewer Arab academics, policymakers, and activists working with Dr. King. Wise also suggests that application of Dr. King's principles logically give way to more sympathy to the Palestinian side given the systematic inequality it faces.

That advocates of Israel have relied on fabricated and out-of-context quotations from a leading moral figure of yesteryear only underscores the absurdity of the general point that all opposition to a Jewish state in a diverse land is anti-Semitic. There are obviously many legitimate ways to critique Zionism. One quite reasonable observation is that after more than a half-century of conflict, the Zionist project has failed to bring the Jews of Israel peace and security--its raison d'etre. One might counter that this is due to Arab intransigence; the Palestinians should accept their dispossession. However, Palestinian opposition to this fate is an indisputable fact, and security was and is Zionism's key goal. This necessarily was an analytical failure on the part of the Zionists who assumed the Palestinians would blend in to other Arab countries while the later generations forget their past. To dismiss this argument--one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals--and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.

This is not to say that all opponents of Israel are not anti-Semitic. Of course the Palestinian cause, like all movements, is exploited by those with other agendas, such as David Duke and Osama Bin Laden. Blanket statements in either direction are inaccurate.

The main reason why critique of Zionism persists is that whether Israeli officials like it or not, history as it is written and the actual land are still disputed by the millions of Palestinians who are refugees as a result of Israel's birth, the 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israel's direct military rule, and the Palestinians who compose 20% of Israel's citizens in second class status. If Israel was founded and developed on uncontested terrain then arguments against its existence would more likely be out of hatred against the Jewish people. For supporters of Israel to wipe away all critics of the methods and outcomes of Israel's foundation with the "anti-Semitic" label denies completely the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative--the experiences and perspectives that never show up in Dr. King's imagined "oasis."

Dr. King, though long-passed, is still monumental in the continuing movement for civil rights in the United States. His legacy should be celebrated, and also critiqued constructively; it should not be falsified or stretched to accommodate a different agenda today. The context behind Dr. King's authentic statements on Zionism was unique to a particular domestic political moment in order to sustain a fragile political coalition. Beyond that, Dr. King never claimed any expertise on the subject, nor made it a frequent topic of his speeches or writings. Claiming that all critiques of Zionism are anti-Semitic based on the force Martin Luther King Jr.'s words on the matter fails as an argument on many different levels.

http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=1393